How did the trustees of the project allow this to happen without the necessary legal commitment of whatever public bodies were needed?

A full transparent breakdown of costs with explanation from those leading the project is needed, so taxpayers can understand who has benefited so significantly, for producing apparently nothing at our expense.

What was the competitive procurement process to ensure fair value? There has been surprisingly few demands for this information. If millions of private funding was pledged, why are they being allowed to walk away?

Something doesn’t smell right.

Richard Tice is chief executive of Quidnet

Topics

Related articles

In the 1940s, one of the visionary plans for London by the town planner Sir Patrick Abercrombie contained a proposal for a bridge across the Thames with crossing points pretty much where the Garden Bridge was supposed to have been constructed.

The announcement this week to finally ditch plans for the Garden Bridge is a sad indictment of London’s inability to compete with other global cities when it comes to placemaking - at least where the public sector is concerned.

No comments yet

Only registered users can comment on this article.

More Feedback

Editor: For some time, the UK government has been promoting greater adoption of modern methods of construction through both its housing and industrial strategy policies. So I was encouraged to read ‘Homes England launches years-long study to support MMC uptake’ as it looks to tap into MMC’s “enormous potential” ...